I had the privilege of reading an Abraham Lincoln biography this summer. The man is widely regarded as one of the best presidents in U.S. history. The reason for this is quite simple, if paradoxical. Lincoln’s primary qualification for the presidency was that he realized he was unqualified for the job.
Lincoln never forgot the great responsibility that rested in his massive hands. It is true that Lincoln was faced with the unenviable task of preserving the Union; yet even without a civil war, the presidency is but a “splendid misery” in the words of Thomas Jefferson.
The presidency is still far too big for one man to handle; yet the system remains in place, even if the candidate cannot remove the sword from the stone. What is most surprising is that the candidates do not realize just how firmly entrenched the sword is. Kerry and Bush gave the impression they could actually perform the job well. I mean no disrespect when I say that both were quite wrong.
It goes without saying that we could use another Jefferson or a Lincoln to lead this republic of ours. We need a humble man who understands that the presidency is a burden that is impossible to carry, and because of this, he does not want it.
We would all be better off having a president who knew he could not do the job. At least we could respect his honesty.
This is, unfortunately, never going to happen. It requires too much work and energy for a genuinely good man to run for any major office, let alone the presidency. If we wish this to change, we ourselves must adapt by encouraging good men to run and only accepting candidates of a humble nature.
Until then, we will be stuck with ambitious men who have the audacity to feel that they are qualified.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Several points.
First, I didn't mention God for a reason. If I do, it doesn't work. The problem is, if I didn't, people--like you--say I may as well have. I am a Catholic to be sure, but I try to rationalize my stance on abortion from a non-religious perspective. Near as I can figure, I have done so consistently.
As we determine the cessation of brain waves to be the definition of death--at least in America, from what I understand--it stands to reason that the opposite should be true. Thus, we should defend life once brainwaves start.
I have taken the right to privacy to an absurd conclusion because it ilustrates a terrible interesing point. No one can say where to draw the line on this one. The logical place to draw the line is when the right to privacy impedes on another entity, that right to privacy is trumped. And of course, that is what the whole debate is about.
You ask, "And by the way, who says life is defined by a few cells that are progammed to beat and a few more that are programmed to emit electric waves."
It seems funny to me that you ignore these very important factors in your decision. If brain waves and a beating heart do not determine life, what does? After all, a few cells are all that is keeping you in the "living" category, insofar as I can see.
Why, I must ask, do you bring up the "Intelligent Design" issue? Since I am a pro-life Christian I must belong to the crowd that hates Darwin. As a matter of course, I do not really care too much about Darwin. He may be right and he may be wrong. Science is always coming up with new theories, that is the beauty of it.
I think this whole business about ID is silly, especially from the Christian folks. Evolution is the best scientific theory we have available, and it should be taught, albeit critically. Also, it should not concern Christians that we may have come from apes. After all, we have souls and the apes don't and wherever the apes came from had to start with God.
There are bigger battles for the Christian to fight, such as on the subject of abortion.
Good try though, you almost nailed me. Notice I will not make any silly swipes at you. I have no idea what your stance is on anything, although I do think you have a very interesting question to answer. Thanks.
Was Abe gay?Gore Vidal and a few others have adopted that stance and supressed sexuality would be depressing.Think of the confident"class" that run the mega trans-national corporations of today and the ego involved. What we need are citizens less willing to concede power and authority to these exalted leaders.
As to the question of life, it certainly exists at the cellular level where there is no heart or brain. Toenails have a "right to life" and yet we heartlessly clip them off.
And again ,all scientific theory is taught and has always been taught critically.It is the nature of science and the "acceptance" or non-acceptance of Darwins theory is a strawman.The way to prove a hypothesis is to keep coming up with ways to disprove it.
Lots to address, here goes...
Steel, I'm right with you on the depression nonsense. As someone who has never really been depressed, maybe it seems heartless, but I'm skeptical of taking pills to make a problem go away that is, in a big way, in one's head.
The scientologists may have a point, but it gets lost in all the Cruise rhetoric. If Cruise became a Catholic Lord knows I would blush something fierce.
Troutsky,
I do not think Abe was gay. He had a hard time with women and romance, but so did many men. Much like Jefferson, he appeared to be a bit of a mommy's boy--even if it was a step-mom in Lincoln's case, if memory serves me correctly.
Repressed sexuality may lead to depression. I really don't know a whole lot on the subject, though as a 20 year old heterosexual male, culture tells me I had better be having sex. Otherwise, I risk being horribly repressed. I will leave it up to those that know me best to let it be known just how badly this "repression" has cost me.
Post a Comment